Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_check_price

Preview the effective cost of a tool call.

Shows the base cost and any constraint effects (discounts, free trials, surge pricing). Free — no credits required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNo
tool_idYesEither the tool's UUID (from the pricing model) or a bare capability string (e.g. ``"deal_scenario"``). FE callers usually have the capability name; this resolves both so the FE doesn't need to derive UUIDs locally.
dpop_tokenNo
tool_kwargsNoOptional JSON object with tool call parameters for ad valorem / categorical-multiplier pricing preview (e.g. '{"amount_sats": 5000}' or '{"difficulty": "sovereign", "mode": "live"}').

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains it's a preview (likely read-only) and lists what it shows (cost, constraints). It does not explicitly state there are no side effects or mention what happens if the tool_id is invalid. This is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief, three sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys key points.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and an output schema (not shown), the description provides a functional overview but lacks details on return values or when to use this tool in a workflow. It is sufficient for basic use but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (two parameters lack descriptions). The description only provides a high-level purpose and does not explain individual parameters. For example, 'npub' and 'dpop_token' are not described in the description, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Preview the effective cost of a tool call.' It specifies what is shown (base cost, constraint effects) and notes it's free. While sibling differentiation is not explicit, the tool's unique function as a cost preview among many cypher_ tools is evident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'Free — no credits required,' implying it's safe to use without cost. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. other sibling tools or what prerequisites exist (e.g., which tool_id to use). Usage context is implied but not fully explained.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All cypher-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set is heavily clustered: audit_why_exists, explain_capability, suggest_capability_why, and authorize_capability_why all answer the same basic 'why does this capability exist?' question and differ mainly in provenance/authority. Many status and provenance tools (adoption_status, session_status, service_status, issue_provenance, pr_provenance, symbol_provenance, service_provenance) also blur together without close reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a predictable cypher_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which provides strong naming consistency across a very large surface. Minor deviations such as cypher_oracle_about, cypher_oracle_how_to_join, cypher_which_service_handles, and cypher_what_realizes_capability are noticeable but do not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count1/5

112 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, regardless of how well the clusters are named; it heavily burdens tool selection, context, and agent discovery. The set spans unrelated domains including payments, coupons, credentials, provenance, issues, patents, queries, pricing, and NOS transformations, which should be split into separate focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Many domain clusters have strong lifeycle coverage: COUPs have mint/list/update/delete/redeem, credentials have courier delivery/box status/update/delete/forget, and the named-query catalog has full CRUD plus published-tool management. Minor gaps exist—e.g., no generic list_services, no delete for capabilities, and no close/resolve action for issues—but most flows have no outright dead end.

Resources